King James Only Discussion

I never understood the whole KJV thing. I find it boring. Someone at work saw my NIV and told me it was from the devil. I asked why. He said KJV is the ONLY version. I asked him if the Bible should be made for all people. He said yes. I asked about China. He said "Yes, they really need it there". And I said "Well, their Bibles are in Chinese not King James English does that make theirs of the devil too?". He had no answer.

I never understood the whole KJV thing. I find it boring. Someone at work saw my NIV and told me it was from the devil. I asked why. He said KJV is the ONLY version. I asked him if the Bible should be made for all people. He said yes. I asked about China. He said "Yes, they really need it there". And I said "Well, their Bibles are in Chinese not King James English does that make theirs of the devil too?". He had no answer.

I prefer NLT, very easy to read.

Great comeback. I've had people tell me KJV is the only version and I usually ask "You realize Jesus spoke Koine Greek and Aramaic, right? And Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament in Koine? The King's English wasn't even around then. How can it be the version Jehovah himself authorized?"

If they have an answer, i'll ask about people in other countries that don't speak English, like you did....

I did a little research on the King James because we had some friends that went "King James Only". I don't begrudge anyone who likes their King James bible (however, I almost never read from mine). But I think to insist that your translation is the "only infallible word of God and all other bibles are evil", is ridiculously cultish behavior.I belong to a "NIV Only" facebook page and see a lot of arguing between KJO and non KJO posters. I have yet to see a viable and compelling argument for embracing only the King James bible while shunning all the other translations.

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."

Does anyone here know whether the charge that the NIV omits some bible verses is true?

Not to completely de-rail this thread, but the King James Onlyists (KJO). Claim that most of the "inferior" translations omit certain verses from the bible. However, they are falsely using the King James Version as the standard to which all other bibles should be held (instead we should be using the oldest or most reliable source transcripts).

In very simple terms the King James Bible was translated to English using mostly the Textus Receptus and a handful of other sources (likely less than a dozen sources). Keep in mind none of these are original scrolls, all of them had been copied for generations (for some 1500 years). These copies had mistakes (although probably not many) and many of them had been copied from other copies that had notes in the margins....sometimes these margin notes would get copied into the text body....essentially changing the biblical text .

It's also good to keep in mind that the numbers we have on bible passages now didn't exist until around the middle 1500's.

The more modern versions (NIV, NASB etc) where compiled by scholars using (in some cases) over 1000 sources. When a verse is "omitted" from one of these modern translations it is because it did not exist in the overwhelming majority of sources. However in most study bibles, there are footnotes that indicate that "some translations include...." So those words are still in most study bibles, they just question if the original source actually included those words.

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."

Jen5

Number of posts : 149Registration date : 2017-08-01

Subject: Re: King James Only Discussion Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:39 pm

Staybrite wrote:

we should be using the oldest or most reliable source transcripts).

Amen to that.

Staybrite wrote:

we should be using the oldest or most reliable source transcripts).

The more modern versions (NIV, NASB etc) where compiled by scholars using (in some cases) over 1000 sources. When a verse is "omitted" from one of these modern translations it is because it did not exist in the overwhelming majority of sources.

Thank you Staybrite. I read an article slamming NIV for omissions and a little voice in my head said..."doubt....DOUBT." I'm glad I asked and I'm glad you knew the answer. Bless you

The answers are considerably more involved than what I "tried" to explain simply. I spent several weeks researching the issue as some good friends went the "King James Only" route and encouraged me to do the same.

I don't think a lot of people realize that the King James wasn't even the first English language translation of the Bible (there are a few earlier translations). There is an English version known as the Geneva Bible that predates King James, and was the popular version of the Puritans.

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."

I felt like most of the more visible "gifts" I witnessed while in the AoG church were faked. They all just magically stop when the music stopped?

??? What does music have to do with the gifts of the Spirit (aside from singing in tongues, AKA harp and bowl, perhaps)?

On the other OT topic (haha), Tyndale is likely the most popular pre-KJV version. I think the KJVO crowd is swayed mostly by numbers since there were like 5000 copies of the Textus Receptus yet sometimes only a single copy of a source was used for other versions. And somehow those 5000 versions couldn't have been transcribed with any errors. Note that I'm not saying God's Word isn't infallible here either. I believe the original transcripts were infallible. Man unfortunately has a way of (un)willingly putting his own interpretation on things. Just like the 4 gospels telling of the same events yet facts are sometimes seemingly different. And the fact it was backed by a politician should make nobody nervous, right?

_________________"If you are not concerned about your neighbor's salvation,you should be concerned about your own."

On the other OT topic (haha), Tyndale is likely the most popular pre-KJV version. I think the KJVO crowd is swayed mostly by numbers since there were like 5000 copies of the Textus Receptus yet sometimes only a single copy of a source was used for other versions. And somehow those 5000 versions couldn't have been transcribed with any errors. Note that I'm not saying God's Word isn't infallible here either. I believe the original transcripts were infallible. Man unfortunately has a way of (un)willingly putting his own interpretation on things. Just like the 4 gospels telling of the same events yet facts are sometimes seemingly different. And the fact it was backed by a politician should make nobody nervous, right?

I don't think I would argue with any of that.However, I do think that most monastical orders (and other pre-modern organizations) probably did a relatively good job in keeping the text as true to the version they were copying as possible (I have heard of completed manuscripts written by hand over several weeks or months that were completely destroyed because they had one word out of order). I think some of the biggest problems came from making copies of a 100 year old manuscript with notes in the margin that were added to the text (or other errors of that nature). But yes certainly if one manuscript had an error and it is copied 5000 times...that doesn't mean that "5000 copies" lend the text more merit than a single copy with no error.In all of that I think God has preserved His Word despite the fallibility of man. I think that is proven when you compare 5 different bible versions and at least 4 out of 5 will say almost exactly the same thing in just about any passage.

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."

One, the original New Testament was mostly letters. They would have been written much like we're talking to each other here, and not nearly as formally as KJV. In fact, if you research Koine Greek, it was a simple language that most people in that area of the world learned as a second language so Paul, Peter, James, the Gospel authors and whoever wrote Hebrews wouldn't have over-complicated things.

Two, topshot makes a good point. King James only translated the Bible to get his name into the history books. I would think it would be better to be forgotten than remembered for something less than honorable (Constantine making Christianity the national religion comes to mind as well).

All that being said, how are things with you alldat?

Fundy

Number of posts : 3688Age : 43Registration date : 2007-05-04

Subject: Re: King James Only Discussion Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:07 am

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

I see your point but sometimes those folks worship the Bible rather than Jesus...

I think we can passionate about his word without being obnoxious or judgmental.

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

Not that it matters, but I disagree. I don't think they are passionate about "The Word of God," I think they are passionate about a book and, more to the point, about drawing lines. Maybe that last thing is because most of the KJVO people I know are also people who view life in an extreme black and white way. They are the people whose lives are defined by what they are against. Again, this is MY experience with these people, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about all KJVO people.

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

Not that it matters, but I disagree. I don't think they are passionate about "The Word of God," I think they are passionate about a book and, more to the point, about drawing lines. Maybe that last thing is because most of the KJVO people I know are also people who view life in an extreme black and white way. They are the people whose lives are defined by what they are against. Again, this is MY experience with these people, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about all KJVO people.

??? What does music have to do with the gifts of the Spirit (aside from singing in tongues, AKA harp and bowl, perhaps)?

With the AoG, speaking in tongues is one of the most visible and most highly sought after gift of the Spirit. It becomes this major separation line between those who have it and those that don't or can't seem to get it. I've seen people lord it over others that they just weren't as spiritual as those that had the ability to speak in tongues.

Often, when I was in the AoG, people would speak or pray out loud in tongues during the music. They would prophesy and then turn around and interpret it themselves. It all felt fake, and very little of those prophesies came to pass. Once the music stopped, everyone sat down and became quiet as death. It just seemed to unreal to me. When we left, we returned to our Baptist roots because we felt most comfortable there. Please note that I am saying that it felt fake or unreal--not that it was fake. I just felt like someone watching a show all the time and it really turned me off. I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit remain until Jesus returns, but the AoG churches I was in during that time felt more like three ring circuses than worship to me. I just played bass and sang harmonies.

I am doing better. I still struggle with why I am serving where I am with no change. I struggle with having interviews for other churches and have that crumble at the last minute. I struggle with only having churches interested in me that seem to be more dead than where I am and only need a pastor to hold their hands until the congregation dies. But, I haven't given up on the Lord. I have had times that I wanted to, but to whom would I go?

_________________

I might have decided, or maybe not, that I should or shouldn't, depending on the issue or non-issue, to possibly share or not share, any thoughts, opinions, or facts (that might not be deemed factual by some), due to possible fear of any misinterpretation or retribution.

Often, when I was in the AoG, people would speak or pray out loud in tongues during the music. They would prophesy and then turn around and interpret it themselves. It all felt fake, and very little of those prophesies came to pass. Once the music stopped, everyone sat down and became quiet as death. It just seemed to unreal to me.

I'd guess I'd feel the same. While the gifts seem to manifest the most during worship (my perception is because people are trying to reach out more then), they can occur at any time in our church. We're not AoG but definitely full gospel.

_________________"If you are not concerned about your neighbor's salvation,you should be concerned about your own."

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

Not that it matters, but I disagree. I don't think they are passionate about "The Word of God," I think they are passionate about a book and, more to the point, about drawing lines. Maybe that last thing is because most of the KJVO people I know are also people who view life in an extreme black and white way. They are the people whose lives are defined by what they are against. Again, this is MY experience with these people, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about all KJVO people.

This has been mainly my experience with the KJO crowd as well. However, most of my exposure to them has been with people on the internet...and that is where you will find the largest assortment of cowards people who like to argue.

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."

I read mainly the NIV, although I kind of like those folk who are KJV only, not because I think they're necessarily right, but because they're passionate about The Word Of God and they seem to put it in a higher regard than many people.I've also listened to a number of talks on why the KJV is the only version we should use, and I do find it rather interesting. But still it comes down to the fact that it's still tricky to read, whilst the NIV is much more accessible.

Not that it matters, but I disagree. I don't think they are passionate about "The Word of God," I think they are passionate about a book and, more to the point, about drawing lines. Maybe that last thing is because most of the KJVO people I know are also people who view life in an extreme black and white way. They are the people whose lives are defined by what they are against. Again, this is MY experience with these people, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about all KJVO people.

This has been mainly my experience with the KJO crowd as well. However, most of my exposure to them has been with people on the internet...and that is where you will find the largest assortment of cowardspeople who like to argue weirdos.

This has been mainly my experience with the KJO crowd as well. However, most of my exposure to them has been with people on the internet...and that is where you will find the largest assortment of cowardspeople who like to argue weirdos.

Fixed that for you...

_________________"I used to be indecisive.......... Now I'm not sure."